Yes I did. Remember page 38???
So stop jumping conclusions.
Read, yes. Understood, no.
I take those who resort to personal attacks as galoots with no argument to put forward. Nowhere in my thread have I attacked a nationality and a person, so you must give me a reason as to why you would resort to this kinda language?
Apology would be a far fetched dream. And so am not expecting it.
My reference to 'tiny brians' stands valid, just go through my reply ahead.
The words are "THENCE NORTH TO GLACIERS". Did you miss it? or did it evade you ?
View attachment 224728
i have said in my previous reply, the phrase 'thence North' is mentioned many times inside the KA-1949, i never disagreed with that, but then what evades you is the fact that you are unable to understand the explanation part of it which FURTHER clarifies the connotation of 'thence North' i.e. pt NJ 9842 is the TERMINAL point of the CFL. Simple. And thus the claim the CFL extended beyond NJ 9842 is a lie. Simple.
To this part in your slide.........
View attachment 224732
Sir, by underlining the slide, you just recomfirmed my claim that the CFL was only UPTO NJ9842, not beyond it, and thus your claims are false.
I have already mentioned in my OP that.....
View attachment 224733
In short the karachi agreement was silent about the point beyond NJ9842
Correct!
but..
Wait! i am confused.
Just a second ago you were hell bent to prove that Siachen is yours because the CFL extends beyond NJ 9842 'thence North-wardly' thus putting the Glacier towards your side of the CFL and you are trying to counter my point with what i am trying to say already? Wicked!
So now, if theres a page 38 then the burden of proof is shifted on your shoulders, but then again we both have expressed the same point in 2 diff ways so I dont think this(your slide) proves anything, unless you expect me to take your words as god's words.
Sure the burden of proof is with me, but what about the burden of commonsense when the following snapshot explains that there is indeed more Chapters (and thus page 38) to the 6-page Karachi Agreement available online?
Now I guess you've not read this part in my OP which talks about Shimla agreement and absence of protests from Pakistani side.
View attachment 224734
Sir, why dont you first decide that whether you want discuss the contents of Karachi-1949 or the Simla Agreement? Everybody knows that the Simla Agreement converts the CFL into LoC and thus TEMPORARILY granting you the gains made during the war as it did grant us Azad Kashmir in 1948. The difference being that we made our gains into an independent Kashmir, but you try to include your gains as part of your own. Irrespective of that, the discussion that i am carryout in connection to Karachi Agreement-1949 relates to the CFL and NOT the LoC and that according to KA-1949, the CFL terminated at NJ9842 and thus leaving the area North of it unclaimed and NOT part of India as you people like to say by quoting the same agreement and harping 'thence North, thence North'.
So, if you want to discuss the LoC's alignment and its effects, feel free to open a new thread, but please dont prove that you indeed have a tiny brain by mixing two agreements when the debate is related to the explanation, understating and effects of the first agreement (KA-1949).
Let's say, tomorrow, India attacks our part of Siachen and the LAC changes further. Then, even though you could claim that all of Siachen is now under your "control" but it wont change the basic (and simple) fact that as per KA-1949, Siachen was NEVER your part at the first place!! Savvy?
As for your second part where you say that Pakistan never protested in 1956-58 (2 x years), i ask, why the fcuk did India not protest when the International Atlases, US Geo Survey, and numerous others were showing Siachin part of Pakistan from 1947 to 1984 (for 37 x years) till you occupied it by force?
Now another fact is...
The factual position of troops on the day of the ceasefire, i.e. January 1, 1949, was to be the basis for delineating the ceasefire line. India and Pakistan had conflicting claims. As the UN had accepted India’s legal status in Kashmir , India used the argument that no-man's land would be taken as Indian territory and got the 200 square mile Tilel Valley precisely on that basis. Pakistan desperately tried for this Valley, eventually bidding for equal share, but failed. The principle of no-man's land being India's territory was thus established and the Siachen glacier would be normally deemed as part of Indian territory using that argument.
"This meant that the onus of proof to convince the commission of any factual position, on the date of ceasefire, in any disputed territory, rested with Pakistan. Sinha (Lt.Gen. S.K. Sinha, the only surviving member from those talks) remembered: “In the absence of any such convincing proof, and even if India had no troops on the date of ceasefire in that area, the disputed territory should automatically come under Indian control… Based on this, we obtained control of several hundred square miles of State territory.’"
Thank you
@Bang Galore
Like i have already said above, we are discussing 1949 Karachi Agreement and the fact that it clearly says (at page 38) that Siachen was not part of India, and that any (deliberate) misinterpretation by India of KA-1949 and the subsequent aggression by her in 1984 based on that misinterpretation is just plain stupid. So, your above quoted post is just another way of you diverting attention from the real issue (the fact that Siachen was NEVER part of India) and no amount of military aggression (1984) to occupy territories will make that fact invalid!
So, if you want to discuss the situation post 1965 or 1971, open up another thread, as i have not gone through this thread from the beginning nor did i bother reading your posts here prior to when i was tagged in this thread. i am just answering to your misinterpretation of Karachi Agreement-1949 and your claim when you wrote in this thread that the slides i have posted in another thread were just my opinion and not facts just because you could not find the page # 38 online?!
and that link is your thread on pdf.
Thanks!
Yes, Einstein, it does. The aim was to provide a link to the remaining slides.
BTW, you didnt answer why the KA-1949's first chapter is numbered if it was indeed the only chapter?
le jo karsakte ho kar lo
Yeah, okay...as a Muslim you may choose to take pride in his actions.
